The name of the institution is irrelevant: it is the quality of their argument that counts. You just don't get that and so you double down on the same logical fallacy. When Einstein advanced a controversial aspect of his theory of relativity Hitler responded by trotting out 50 of his best scientists to say Einstein was wrong. But Einstein responded (quite correctly) "it only takes one to prove me wrong". Proponents of AGW employ the same fallacies as you (fallacies designed to convince others to not look at the evidence) to wit, 97% of scientists (or mainstream science) agree that global warming is human caused and will be disastrous if we don't restrict fossil fuel use. But science does not proceed by way of consensus. Something is true or correct (or likely so) not because everyone agrees that it is, but because the evidence fits the theory. You are afraid to respond to arguments showing the evidence does not fit the theory as evidenced by your constant invocation of consensus and the prestige of the proponents of your pet theory. But scientific consensus has often been spectacularly wrong. Defenders of the neo-Darwinian synthesis employ the same tired fallacies, but the gig is up because intelligent people are taking notice that the invocation of fallacies (like peer review for example) are really admissions of theoretical or evidentiary weakness. Don't be afraid DBT and AS, open your eyes and learn!
